4 ms·
The other thing is that the laid off employees will lose all their unvested RSUs. These shares were granted as compensation for past performance but they can no
by absolutewinner 5mo ago
The other thing is that the laid off employees will lose all their unvested RSUs. These shares were granted as compensation for past performance but they can now be conveniently clawed back by the company just because they decide to lay you off. Stock can be a large part of someone's compensation in a tech company. Companies shouldn't be allowed to benefit this way if they decide to lay off employees.
- cheevly 5mo agoFalse
- mtucker502 5mo agoWhat particular point do you find false?
- boguscoder 5mo agoAlas this happens in all FAANG layoffs too, some lucky people get to received one more vest but nothing close to all unvested RSUs
- fc417fc802 5mo agoHow is that legal? I thought the entire point of delayed vesting was to disincentivize jumping ship. If they're the ones throwing you overboard clawing back RSUs seems like a roundabout form of wage theft.
- senordevnyc 5mo agoI always viewed them as future comp that was locked at a certain rate (in terms of number of shares per quarter). I got four years of unvested stock on day 1 when I joined a tech company, why on earth would I think I'm entitled to all that if I leave before it's vested?
- fc417fc802 5mo agoIf you see it as dangling future compensation in front of you then you wouldn't, obviously. But then why is it structured in that manner? What's the purpose? If you view it as a signing bonus it makes perfect sense. They want to get you in the door but also don't want you to take advantage of them by quitting immediately. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to it if you left voluntarily or were fired for cause but being laid off is entirely their choice.
- senordevnyc 5mo agoIt’s structured that way to disincentivize leaving voluntarily, which I think is fine. What’s the problem with that? And why would that imply that if I’m laid off, I’m still entitled to that future compensation?
- eudamoniac 5mo agoIn the worst case, it's highly misleading. Imagine you get paid a pittance but with a huge RSU grant vesting on a 2 year cliff. Salary 50k, total comp 500k. Then they fire you after 23 months. You took the job because of the stock grants, you had no intention of quitting, but they got 2 years of good talent for 50k.
- senordevnyc 5mo agoWell sure, we could throw out all kinds of theoretically abusive situations, but how often does that happen in the real world? I haven't seen any companies granting RSUs that pay a pittance in salary. And it seems many tech companies have dropped their one year cliff as well. Who has a two year cliff? Now to be clear, stock options are completely different, and in the vast majority of cases, I'd value those at zero or near-zero.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago> I haven't seen any companies granting RSUs that pay a pittance in salary. If you recognize something as wrong in principle when taken to the extreme shouldn't you also regard milder instances to be wrong as well? "Well sure, if you steal $1M that's obviously immoral but that guy only stole $100." Of course in this case I recognize that there's quite a bit of uncertainty over how exactly the intent and representation of RSUs ought to be interpreted. I had always seen them as akin to a signing bonus but it's clear now that many people don't share that perspective.
- boguscoder 5mo agoThe legalese around it is that it’s always contingent on your employment on those futures dates. It’s based on past performance, yes, but it’s not payment for past work (that’s what bonus is for), its incentive to stay longer and contribute to company’s success. When you are out of the door (for whatever reason) company looses need to incentivize you to:(